11. At the time that plaintiff left defendant's employ,
plaintiff was receiving an annual salary of $13,560 from
defendant, plus other benefits including pension and profit
sharing, hospitalization, and health insurance.

12. On or about August 16, 1973, plaintiff filed charges
with the EEOC and the Illinois Fair Employment Practices
Commission alleging that defendant unlawfully terminated
plaintiff's employment based upon plaintiff's religion and
national origin.

13. On or about November 8, 1973, defendant acknowledged
receipt of the EEOC charge filed by plaintiff.

14. In November 1973, plaintiff had two interviews with Jack
Peninger of Commonwealth regarding the position of sales
representative. This position with Commonwealth paid a salary
of approximately $17,500 annually, plus health and retirement
benefits, and one percent of net sales as commission.

15. On November 12, 1973, Commonwealth wrote to defendant
requesting information regarding plaintiff's employment with
defendant.

16. On November 21, 1973, James Morita of defendant's
personnel office wrote a letter to Commonwealth stating that
plaintiff resigned due to lack of understanding of position
objectives and functions.

10. Applying the law to the alleged retaliation by defendant
in giving an unfavorable and untrue recommendation of
plaintiff to Commonwealth, the court concludes that plaintiff
has failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (1978). Plaintiff has shown
that he engaged in statutorily-protected activity pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (1978) by filing the original EEOC charge
in August 1973. Plaintiff, however, has not shown any adverse
employment action by defendant regarding plaintiff's
application for employment with Commonwealth. Rather, as a
result of an inquiry by Commonwealth, defendant merely relayed
to Commonwealth a statement included on plaintiff's exit
interview form which had been acknowledged and signed by
plaintiff. The fact that defendant in communicating with
Commonwealth omitted the word "mutual" from the statement on
the exit interview form does not constitute adverse employment
action for the purpose of establishing the second element of a
prima facie case of retaliation under title VII. The EEOC
finding that there was reasonable cause to believe plaintiff's
allegation of retaliation regarding the reason given to
Commonwealth by defendant is entitled to some consideration by
the court, but is not conclusive. Alternatively, assuming
arguendo that plaintiff established a prima facie case of
retaliation regarding the reason given to Commonwealth by
defendant for plaintiff leaving the employ of defendant, the
court concludes that defendant has rebutted the prima facie
case with a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the
statement to Commonwealth and that plaintiff has failed to
establish that defendant's reason is a pretext for
discrimination prohibited by title VII. Accordingly, plaintiff
has failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by
defendant in violation of title VII regarding plaintiff's
application for employment with Commonwealth.

11. As to the alleged retaliation by defendant whereby
defendant stated to Congoleum that plaintiff was given an
opportunity to resign due to plaintiff's misunderstanding as
to his duties, the court concludes that plaintiff has failed
to establish a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (1978). Again, under the analysis applied
to defendant's alleged retaliation regarding the application
for employment with Commonwealth, the court concludes that
plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of
retaliation in violation of title VII. Plaintiff has shown that
he engaged in statutorily-protected activity pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (1978) by filing the original EEOC charge in
August 1973, but has not shown any adverse employment action by
defendant regarding the reason given to Congoleum by defendant
for plaintiff leaving the employ of defendant. Again, the fact
that defendant, in stating plaintiff's reason for leaving
defendant's employ, omitted the word "mutual" from the
statement on plaintiff's exit interview form does not
constitute adverse employment action for the purpose of
establishing a prima facie case of retaliation under title VII.
Alternatively, assuming arguendo that plaintiff established a
prima facie case of retaliation regarding the reason given to
Congoleum by defendant for plaintiff leaving the employ of
defendant, the court concludes that defendant has rebutted the
prima facie case with a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
for the statement to Congoleum regarding why plaintiff left
defendant's employ and that plaintiff has failed to establish
that defendant's reason is a pretext for discrimination
prohibited by title VII. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to
establish a prima facie case of retaliation by defendant as to
defendant's
statement to Congoleum regarding why plaintiff left the employ
of defendant.

15. In that there is no evidence before the court to
establish the amount, if any, of unemployment compensation
received by plaintiff, nor whether the Congoleum sales
representative position in Chicago was continued after January
1976 when Congoleum terminated its Chicago operations, the
court concludes that plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the
amount of $16,000.00, which represents the salary of
$17,500.00 annually for a period of twelve months from January
1, 1975 to January 1, 1976 minus the salary of $12,000.00
which plaintiff received from his employment with Allied Fiber
Tube and Can Company beginning on November 17, 1975.

JUDGMENT

Accordingly, plaintiff's claim of retaliation pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (1978) regarding his application for
employment with Commonwealth is denied and judgment is entered
for defendant as to this claim. Plaintiff's claim of
retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 (1978) as to
defendant's statement to Congoleum regarding plaintiff's reason
for leaving the employ of defendant is denied and judgment is
entered for defendant as to this claim. Judgment is granted in
favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the amount of
$16,000.00, sixteen thousand dollars and no cents, for
plaintiff's claim of retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3
(1978) regarding defendant's statement to Congoleum
that plaintiff had filed an EEOC charge against defendant. The
court reserves on the awarding of attorney's fees at this time.

It is so ordered.

Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.